[Peace-discuss] Letter in DI

[David Green]

This letter was printed in the DI today, with the
editor moving a comma to make me sound ungrammatical.
I would only add that there is no evidence whatsoever
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

DG 


In order to get his story straight, Chuck Prochaska
(3-15) needs to add a few minor details: First, a
democratically-elected secular government in Iran was
overthrown by the CIA in 1953. Second, the Shah who
was put into power brutally repressed secular and
religious opposition, with the help of both U.S. and
Israeli military weapons and advisors. Third, even
after the rise of the theocratic regime in 1979, both
the U.S. and Israel sold weapons to Iran during the
Iran-Iraq War, including those related to the
Iran-Contra affair in 1986 during our illegal invasion
of Nicaragua. Fourth, Iraq did not begin to develop a
nuclear weapons program until after Israel bombed its
Osirak facility in 1981. Fifth, Israel is the only
country in the region with nuclear weapons, it has
them illegally, and the other countries recognize the
implications of this double standard all too well.
Sixth, Israel will only bomb Iranian facilities at the
behest of the U.S. Sixth, these countries know from
experience that the only way to deter a U.S. or
Israeli attack or invasion is to have nuclear weapons;
thus our recent actions have only encouraged their
development, if they indeed are being developed.
Seventh, Iran has elements of democracy and a strong
secular opposition to the government that is
undermined by foreign threats against the government.
Eighth, that opposition prefers to resist the regime
without the help of the U.S., for both pragmatic and
ideological reasons. And finally, an attack on Iran by
either the U.S. or Israel would, like our invasion of
Iraq, be a godsend to terrorist recruitment in the
Middle East. Yes Chuck, we do need to get our story
straight, in spite of your efforts to obscure it with
the current government propaganda.


The Daily Illini - Opinions 
Issue: 3/15/05 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Column: The Iranian story
By Chuck Prochaska 

Recently, it has become evident that the next major
foreign policy challenge facing the United States is
Iran's quest to go nuclear. This situation has many
parallels to the lead up to war with Iraq, but unlike
that situation, I'm not convinced that war is an
option here. The first objective for the U.S. in
dealing with Iran must be to organize a consistent
message - make it clear to the Iranians what will and
will not be tolerated and what the consequences of
their actions will be. 

Iran is slowly replacing Saddam's Iraq as the next
greatest threat to international peace in our time. In
the last few weeks, they've been bragging to the world
about their budding nuclear weapons program. When
questioned, Iran insists it enriches uranium only for
peaceful purposes but continues to defend its right to
possess a nuclear weapon. Taking a page out of
Saddam's playbook, they've been on the offensive,
offering harsh rhetoric promising an "unstable Middle
East" should the United Nations or the United States
attempt to physically stop an Iranian nuclear program.
This is unacceptable coming from the world's premier
state sponsor of terrorism. 

Current U.S. restrictions on Iran - as a result of its
non-compliance - include strong opposition to its
membership application in the World Trade
Organization, as well as a ban on sales of civilian
aircraft parts. Yet, last week, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice offered Iran a deal: we ease up on
those restrictions and they stop enriching uranium.
Simultaneously, Vice President Cheney switched gears
and said if Iran does not comply with U.S. demands,
then we must take stronger action against them. A few
days prior, President Bush announced that attacking
Iran would be "simply ridiculous." So which is it? 

The Bush Administration must get its story straight
with regards to publicizing a policy that will prevent
an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Israel has its story straight. They have already laid
out plans for tactical air strikes on Iranian nuclear
development facilities. 

The United Nations and the United States must take a
hard line against the development of an Iranian
nuclear weapon and must live up to their early
promises to draft, pass and enforce Security Council
resolutions. If and when this does not happen, the
United States and Israel must physically eliminate
Iran's nuclear capabilities. 

The parallels between this situation and the lead up
to the war in Iraq are almost comical. We have never
actually seen these weapons. Of course there have been
satellite images taken, and Iran promises nukes are
being built somewhere underground. But still, you
liberals might ask, do we really know they are there? 

I'm still of the opinion that if a country tells you
they have WMDs, and you've seen them building WMDs,
then they have WMDs.

Where the Iraq story and Iran story begin to separate
is at the United Nations. The U.N. response to Iran
has been encouraging - Security Council leaders have
promised to hold Iran accountable to international
accords barring them from nuclear production.

However, realists know this U.N. accountability song
and dance - they've lost legitimacy after the
Resolutions 1441 and 687 debacles with Iraq. 

Should the U.N. not make good on their promises to
stop Iranian nuclear production, either through
bribery or persuasion, the United States and Israel
must be prepared to do so. 

Because the United States must certainly not budge
from the concept of a nuclear-free Iran, I'm led to
believe our only option is to physically stop them
from producing nuclear weapons should, and when,
international diplomacy fails. Does this mean we must
invade and change regimes? No. Ground troops are
unnecessary; full scale invasions are impractical.

The goal of war is to get your enemy to do your will.
An allied precision bombing campaign that shuts down a
fledgling nuclear program will be as close to war as
we need to come.

But first, the United States needs to get the story
straight. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------